The meaning of "meaning"

Eyebrows rasing quicklyIll just ignore the fact that you really dont see the point of our discussion and pretend it doesnt matter as a barrier to your understandingYour right Albert, we are not discussing the How of E, or whether it is a fact directly, we are discussing the How of evidence, evolution is an illustration twords that GoalYou believe in the reality of evolution in its entirity, yet never observed it first hand. Which forces you to the atheistic conclusion, baring anyother that this process is a product of itself and chance.Now the problem with that tenative suitable fact in your mind, is that there could be other possible explanations as to the how of the process, ancient alien DNA, seeded in the oceans, and or an eternal, omniscient creator, which is very reasonable and demonstratable given the designDo you now see that I am actually discussing rules of evidence for you and myself, not the specifics of this piece of data or that piece of data, this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence, not the parts yet, the wholeDawn Bertot

Very colorful but of little help considering the fact that design is obvious and can be logically determined according to the data presentThis observable fact coupled with numerous other evidences in relation to human existence and characteristics, makes it easy to determine, that life and its existence does have meaningAgain what concievable argument could be advanced to remove obvious and inticate design in the physical world, other than, I didnt see God make it and i dont like the argumentwatching skeptics try and remove the intricacies of design as obvious design, is of no little source of humor to myselfSorry if that the best youve got out goes your theory as well and i doubt you are going to disavow evolution as a fact anytime soon, correctDawn Bertot

This is nonsense, as we know very well several instances in which simple systems produce the mere appearance of design.Some examples: the intricacies of snowflakes arise from their chemistry, very simple equations produce the amazing complexities of fractal shapes, evolution running on more than one substrate (computers, electronic circuits, biology) can produce adaptation.Indeed, just the fact that the universe has properties leads to a false appearance of design. No superstition is required to understand what we see around us.

No, I see a whole bunch of nonsense and word salad. No, I was discussing the fact of Evolution, that it happened.Evolution is a fact.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The appearance of design is obvious, but design is not.Take a crystal of sodium chloride. It is a perfect cube, it appears designed, but when analyzed it simply shows that it is a natural shape do to the size of the ions. A huge chloride ion with 8 tiny sodium ions around it and in this lattice each tiny sodium ion is surrounded by 8 chloride ions called a body centered cube, natural from the ions, no design needed, but yet it has the appearance of design.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Very colorful but of little help considering the fact that adaptation is obvious and can be logically determined according to the data present Again what concievable argument could be advanced to remove obvious and inticate adaptation in the physical world, other than, I didnt see evolution make it and i dont like the argument watching creationists try and remove the intricacies of adaptation as obvious evolution, is of no little source of humor to myself Sorry if that the best youve got out goes your hypothesis as well and i doubt you are going to disavow fiat creation as a fact anytime soon, correct---Assertion --- it's nearly an argument!

Since you seem to be unable to answer a DIRECT question AND STILL REFUSE to answer it, even if it is put you repeadley, ie, is it possible to believe in something as fact, not having observed the event, ie EVOLUTION. Ill take this as the best that I am going to get in response to my query.Now any thinking person here knows why you are avoiding answering the question directly. You know what its implication is but you also know what it will do to your position as to what constitutes evidence.Ill keep asking it however to demonstrate to the audience, that you will notYou KNOW evolution is a FACT?, when there could have been numerous alternatives to its inception. Yet you KNOW it is a FACT, that evolution began with no assistance other than the physical properties at presentPlease demonstrate how you KNOW evolution is of is of itself a product of itself. Explaining how something operates and showing corelation between items is far from knowing evolutions origins, because evolution has nothing to do with originsNow pay close attention. The obvious correlation comes from the source of any origin of chemical properties to allow such organization in the first place. Evolution assumes these properties exist of thier own accord, that would be what yo9u need to demonstrate to elemenate design as design. Otherwise its organization and harmonious interactionbetween parts sure seems to be desginedMy evidence from design is as strong as any evidence of evolution, if we use the same rules. You seem not to want to do that, I wonder whyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It is not a matter of belief, it is a conclusion. Evolution happened. I know that Evolution is a fact, yes. It's inception is irrelevant to the fact that life evolved.Nothing has ever been presented as a way life could evolve other than physical and chemical processes.No evidence of any designer has ever been presented. When you bring the designer in and place the designer on the lab table I will also consider the designer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, it is nonsense to assume any system is simple. Any orginism that operates as it was DESGINED ,independent but in harmony with another is not only not simple but very clearly designed.Any single celled orginism that far exceeds mans designs and accomplishments operating independantly can hardly be called simple, my guess would be designed, but designed to the point that it cannot create itself or regains its properties once destroyedThere are no systems or orginisms individually, flaling around waiting for more of its parts to operate correctly. They, even as basic as they may be individually are DESIGNED perfectly as parts to operate in harmony with other parts to make the whole The part of the chemistry that make up the snowflake, the equations as you call them, are in themselves perfectly designed, regardless of what design they may produce. But they produce a relative design based on individual based designed partsthe evolutionist needs to demonstrate every detail of the basic elements in the process of the so-called process. what they need to demonstrate is the very thing they cannot prove All that you do is TRY and explain a mechanism, there is no need to assume there is NO design, when you cannot explain the SOURCE or its ORIGIN. the first and correct instinct is to assume that event he based parts operate independant of the whole, but in conjunction to make up the wholeOne is not warrented is assigning the category of false appearence to design, when he is unable to even explain its origin. it is more reasonable to proclaim design than notThe proclamation and categotrical blanketing of design as false appearance needs to be demonstrated as false before the obvious could be dismissed. the such like is not argumentation its simply complainingThe clear evidence is on the side of designDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your just about to get what I am talking about Big cat blues. THE IONS big cat, are the designed item, to produce a relative shape or the appearnce of a designed shape, or as you call it natural shapeIts the only natural shape the DESIGNED ions will or can produce. What is produces is really irrelevant to its more basically DESIGNED PARTS.Example, my individual elementary designed parts turned me into a strapping, very good looking, muscular hunk of a man, with a little help from Isometrics and a few machines.Yes I have a girls first name, so Sue me, no pun intendedDawn Bertot

One is not warrented is assigning the category of false appearence to evolution, when he is unable to even explain its origin. it is more reasonable to proclaim evolution than notThe proclamation and categotrical blanketing of evolution as false appearance needs to be demonstrated as false before the obvious could be dismissed. the such like is not argumentation its simply complainingThe clear evidence is on the side of evolution---Golly, this is fun, isn't it?---Many of your sentences appear to have been translated from Korean by a computer. What on Earth did you men by "the first and correct instinct is to assume that event he based parts operate independant of the whole".I don't think anyone has ever assumed "that event he based parts operate independant of the whole". Because that is not written in any known language.

Adaptation, even if it could be proved, has nothing to do with designed intricate parts operating independently, but in harmony with other itemsWhile some adaptation can be traced the entire process, assumed as it is, cannot be dug up or analyzed, only extrapolated and hypthoziedEven if evolution were completley demonstratable, it would do nothing to remove clearly designed behaviorDawn Bertot

Absolutley. here is a hint, grow up, it not amuzing And there is your problem. I never said evolution was false, I said it has nothing to do with dismantling the very clear and obvious design in designNot only do most evos want to imply that because evo is true, therefore design is not, they also proclaim out loud that design is false without providing any support or argument to the contrary.It makes them glaringly sillyDawn Bertot

And creation, even if it could be proved, has nothing to do with evolved intricate parts operating independently, but in harmony with other items. While no fiat creation of species whatsoever can be traced the entire process, assumed as it is, cannot be dug up or analyzed, only extrapolated and hypthozied Even if creation were completley demonstratable, it would do nothing to remove clearly evolved behavior(Yes, well, it makes as much sense as your sentence.)Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box

I never said creation was false, I said it has nothing to do with dismantling the very clear and obvious evolution in evolution Not only do most creos want to imply that because creo is true, therefore evolution is not, they also proclaim out loud that evolution is false without providing any support or argument to the contrary.It makes them glaringly silly---Let us know when you think of some real arguments, eh?